Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Hmmm...doesn't seem like it was drivel to me. Seems like it was a case of, "I don't agree with this guy's politics, or his methods of getting his point across. He's called himself a stalker before, and he's a stalker in this latest blog that he's written".

That sounds like free speech to me, the same kind that Luskin enjoys.

Most content on the web is uninteresting to anyone except the person who posted it and a small circle of their friends and family. If it actually ends up being interesting to more people, then it will attract the attention of other people who will read it. So, I honestly don't see how you're affected by uninteresting blogs unless you're actively seeking them out.

I myself have never spent time, energy, or mental anguish over a blog page I didn't like or find interesting. I just clicked the back button and forgot all about it.

If anything, Luskin's page poorandstupid.com is pretty offensive and doesn't jive with any of my politics. He seems willing to openly attack other people, particularly this one poor columnist. However, I wouldn't question his right to write what he's written, although if he keeps on stalking, there might be legal grounds for him to be given a restraining order or something of that nature.

Um, what the hell are you talking about? As far as political bloggers go, right or left, Atrios is one of the most prolific and well read. But way to go, in typical Slashdot fashion, commenting on something you really know nothing about.

Whilst the quality of average British cuisine might be uninspiring, the "finest quisine of the British Isles" is represented by some of the worlds best restaurants [bbc.co.uk] (the top 20 list in that link contains 3 British entries).

are these the same 280 Americans that voted G.W. Bush into the white house?

Nope, it was only five of them that voted G. W. Bush into the Whitehouse.

Mind you given that Bush now seems to think that it is the sailors fault that the 'Mission Acomplished" sign that the Whitehouse produced and flew out to the U.S. Lincoln somehow got hung up, he can probably convince himself to believe anything, including the idea he was elected.

Because blogs are just little public journals. Can you really call it "publishing" when you're just writing up your opinion on some hosted website?

That's like if I called YOU a stalker in a Slashdot post, and you sued me for it. It's ridiculous. Sorry to burst the bubble, but I could make a website called saddinosucks.com and write stuff about you, and it wouldn't matter because it's my own personal website that I'm doing myself. Now, if I started making money off insulting you, that could be another s

There are death/violent threats against Luskin contained on the blog in question. It's one thing to call someone a bad name, its another to assist in the advocacy of violence against another. That crosses the line. It appears Luskin wants those removed. If that happens, it looks like the suit will be dropped. Not all to unreasonable. Defending threatning behavior is not defending the 1st Amendment.

As I posted elsewhere on this page, Luskin advocated cream-pieing Krugman on his book tour [poorandstupid.com]. This was he himself who posted this, not some anonymous reader of his blog. And now he doesn't want to be called a stalker?

But a pie attack suggestion is much more likely to be acted upon. (Reading Luskin in context, I'm pretty convinced he wasn't being satirical.) Many celebrities have been victims, including Bill Gates [bitstorm.org] and (as your own posting shows) people don't sympathise so much or even view it as a violent attack.

Threats of violence in blog comments, apart from being really stupid, are an unfortunate problem for various types of political blogs. There's a real question there of legality and liability.

However, in Atrios's post [blogspot.com] describing the incident, he claims that he offered to remove the offending comments, and that Luskin demanded instead that the whole post and all of its comments be removed.

fascinating that people others want to know their daily rants and raves, what even fascinates me more is the people who read them. Are most bloggers some famed person who has achieved greatness and is willing to give insight into how they do what they do? No, it's bob the mechanic down the hill that repaired a faulty transmission on a '62 Buick the other day who just so happens to have a really cool website with his own personal blog section.

The nice thing about blogs is that anyone can be published. The interesting thing about people is that anyone can be insightful. The limiting factor is that 99% of everybody is a fucking jerkoff. Let's also not forget that half of everyone has less than a 100 I.Q., for what IQ testing is worth.

Hence bob the mechanic might have a more interesting and/or useful blog than, say, ESR (since he's in our news ATM, he came to mind. Amazing, the power of media.) Bob's blog will be especially interesting if you h

Get your damn facts straight! He goes by Robert, not Bob and it was a '63 Buick not a '62... a Roadmaster if I recall correctly. Ah yes, a vintage '63 Buick Roadmaster... a sweet ride.

Also note that the transmission was not deemed faulty. It worked fine with the original engine whiel the original engine. It was only after that engine was removed and a brand new 1000 horsepower engine was installed that the "faulty" transmission had problems. Who knew that a thousand ponies could do that much damage to a tr

Yeah but the thing is here is a forum where people come to discuss things... Loads of different minds and different opinions get thrown out in masses... you pick through the mindless dribble (80%?) and assimilate what you desire. Blogging on the other hand is focused from one particular individual's mind and more than likely from a complete idiot who thinks he is cool for posting stuff on his own personal website.

Since the articles on/. are hand picked by staff then we are nothing more than a pack of do

... just maybe, he's writing deathless prose about automatic gearboxes (though it would be hard, I'll grant you). This chap, guddling about among oily bits in his garage, might well have been the next Great American Writer, with a narrative style that makes Ernest Hemingway read like a Clymer manual.

If I read the blog and the article correctly, this is a case where two guys are throwing mud at each other.Finally one of them couldnt take it anymore and called a lawyer. The only thing that is probably interesting to slashdot is that somebody is not willing to treat blogging equivalent to free speech.
Next article please....

Libel is not protected free speech. You can call someone an idiot, a jerk, even someone who supports baby-killing (what normal people might call pro-choice). But you can't call someone a criminal (a stalker, in this) without evidence.

The burden of evidence would be on the person filing the lawsuit. So, in order to win a lawsuit accusing someone of libel, you must prove that their statements are false. So, I can apparently call someone a criminal without evidence; they would seem to need evidence to the contrary.

I disagree. If you are going to accuse somebody of a crime, you need evidence. It doesn't matter if you actually bring someone before a court of law. I can't call you a child molester and say "it's not libel because you can't prove you aren't." That's not how it works.

Did you read the context in which he called himself a stalker, or just the Dowd-ified quote in the subject?

There's a difference between someone literally accusing you of commiting a felony, and jokingly referring to yourself that way.

Look at is this way: if I were pro-choice, I might say something like this to some pro-life fanatic who called me a "baby killer": "Fine! Call me a baby killer! If that's the way you feel, then I'm a baby killer!"

Luskin's attacks on Krugman for National Review Online are often rather despicable. I am a conservative, but I can't stand reading Luskin. Besides, Krugman does have some good points. He has been saying that our record deficit (as high a percentage of the GDP as in the Reagan years) is leading to one of three options in the next decade: A) A steep tax hike soon B) A drastic cut in Government programs C) a financial crisis when the market decides that the government is not going to pay them back.

Bush is aiming at B, but he has made no political preparation for it. Nobody is ready to accept drastic cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Without that preparation, we are most likely headed towards C.

If you're going to go way off target, let's talk about todays news that the economy grew over 7% in the last quarter, which makes government revenues go up, not down, which is why the deficit has been corrected DOWN, not up, new requests for unemployment benefits are DOWN, not up... You don't sound like a conservative to me, at least fiscally.

Anyone failing to see the big picture is only blinded by a hatred for a man. The hatred grows when that man shows any signs of success.

Indeed, that's exactly what the supply siders and starve the beasts want - no govt programs for the <= rich.

I have nothing against being rich, in fact, I hope to be financially secure one day. However, until that happens and everyone has a job or some sort of income, then there will be need for safety nets - for the good of society.

It is even more evident that the corporate crowd has blantently pitched its tent on the Whitehouse lawn and has no plans of leaving as long as this adminis

What, EXACTLY, are benefits the "rich" are getting that poor people aren't? And while you're at it, define "rich".

You want to stem financial disaster? How about this: todays news is that the GDP grew a WOPPING 7.2 percent (best quarter in almost 20 years). The estimates of the deficit keep shrinking because of the tax cut (even JFK knew how that worked). New requests for unemployment benefits have also dropped, and are staying below the 4

If you get filled with any more shit your head's gonna pop. Partisan politics sucks, but you throw the meaningless term "left" around like it was going out of style? You know, your head DOES contain a brain, it's not just ornamental. You could always just ignore people who insist on taking a party line on every issue since debating things with them is fruitless anyway. At the same time, you could have intelligent debates with people who think about each issue independant of what

What, EXACTLY, are benefits the "rich" are getting that poor people aren't? And while you're at it, define "rich".

Okay, how about 87B of our tax dollars for awarding contracts without bidding to companies the administration has ties to, while most states are cutting back on educational programs for kids not rich enough to attend private schools.

This guy is a democrats dream come true

You mean the guy that suggests the way to prevent forest fires is by selling all the timber to his buddies in the timber

The Baby Boom generation is getting too old. We would have to get very lucky to grow our way out. Not impossible -- some new technological advance or some such, but unlikely.

More worrying, are the oil reserve studies saying that with best estimates of reserves to be discovered we have 20 years until peak world oil production -- even at zero consumption growth. And peak non-OPEC production hits the top in a decade. That won't be fun.

The level of education is a substantial problem as you say. But it is even a greater problem than most people realize. Level of education of the parents turns out to be the number one predictor in level of education of the children. The contribution of immigrants and the next two generations makes up a minimal part of the GDP despite their numbers. And the social burdens they place on the systems generally cancels that out. I wonder if it really can be solved.

The angry left can't accept that Bush may actually have done something right. Get used to it. This election is going to be UGLY, thanks to living in perhaps the freest society on the face of the planet. All the loonies are coming out to join in the fun.

Luskin is not a stalker in the legal sense, which is what Krugman implied on national TV. Luskin went to ONE lecture by Krugman.

The controversy of Luskin calling himself a stalker stems from literal and non-literal uses of the word. I find the whole thing nonsense, but any third party who is going to step in and start parroting something like "so and so is a stalker" is only going to get what they are asking for.

Stalking is a serious crime. To accuse someone of it, in the literal sense, is akin to me accusing someone of being a child molester - I'd better have some evidence to back that claim up. I would not expect to NOT be called on it. It's NOT like calling someone an idiot or a jerk.

So who's the "literal" stalker? I also read the Krugman interview transcript, it seemed pretty clear to me he was using "stalk" in the dictionary sense (follow purposefully and stealthily) not in the legal sense.

KRUGMAN: That's a guy, that's a guy who actually stalks me on the web, and once stalked me personally.

"Actually" and "stalked me personally" seem to be pretty strongly worded to just mean "figuratively stalking". I'd say that Luskin is overreacting, but that Krugman was in the wrong to accuse him of literal "stalking".

I don't know why people do this... they have to realize by now that a libel suit (or any suit) against any kind of media or publishing organization is just free publicity for the defendant. The most unfortunate outcome of this is that babbling fools like Atrios get all the attention while better, more insightful bloggers get tarred with the same stigma of unprofessionalism without any of the benefit of publicity.

It's also free publicity for themselves. And if they believe that, in the course of the usual arguments that are going back and forth, that people who read the blogs will more often agree with them, then it's worth it.

Exactly. Why is this news? If you publish -- in any form -- you are beholden to laws (or in the firing case, beholden to the codes of conduct of your employer) -- and Luskin has the right to bring a course of action here. Whether he prevails or not is up to the courts.

Luskin's lawsuit is grounded on defamation. I can defame you and be sued for it without publishing anything; e.g., I can just go stand in a crowded public place and tell everyone you are a child molester.

Stalking is a felony in many (most) parts of America, so this accusation being made is a serious one. Paul Krugman recently made the charge on Hannity and Colmes, a television program, and Luskin had to go there to defend himself, too. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability, so I hope they find this guy and hold him accountable.

Paul Krugman is a public figure, being a prominent columnist for the most prominent news paper in the country. If people like Luskin can't challenge public f

The guy himself said "We Stalked", what more does he have to do. Luskin is a dick, or if not, is certainly making himself look like one. If he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen, not go crying to his mummy.

People seem to have high opinions of themselves and their precious egos. Try reading some court decisions about libel and the net - there's a darned high threshold that must be passed for it to be considered libel. Denbeste [denbeste.nu] had a great comment about this - scan down to the entry labelled "Stardate 20031027.0423" to read it.

It seems as though most of the lawsuits regarding online publication, comments, and so on is the difference between "personal comments" and "news publication."

I may be wrong, but I believe that the fine line between "libel" and "opinion" lies in who's talking, and what they're talking about. If the Local Sunday Times states for a fact that one week ago I was spotted by 100 people dancing naked in a local fountain, and no such event occurred, then I could be sue for libel.

However, if some guy down the street told that to his neighbor - I don't believe I have a leg to stand on. Even if he was on TV and say "Yeah, he was out there doing that", and the news said "Well, that's what Mr. Jones has said", I'm still not sure I could sue either for libel (unless the news organization stated that for a fact - odds are, they'd use the statement "allegedly dancing naked in a fountain."

So what is a blog, or a newsgroup posting then? To most people here, they are "comments", "opinions", things that you take with a grain of salt. You don't take them as fact.

Of course, some online articles are meant to be fact - Salon, perhaps even a gaming site like Blues News could if they knowingly published false information.

But I think Mr. Luskin made a mistake in the difference between "some guy who's got an opinion who happens to write it down for others to read" and "a true news organization." My hope is that the courts rule that blogs, newsgroups, and other "commentary" style online posting are just that - some person expressing their viewpoints on something, perhaps in a sarcastic tone, but not held up to the same standards as a true "news" publication.

Who cares about one journalist suing another for being a journalist. Both of these guys would be better served by actually finding some real news to report about. Ahhh forget it. People don't like real news it hurts too much.

There's nothing funny about this that I can see. Some poor guy who hasn't hurt anybody will have to spend x number of hours out of his life to deal with this crap and to make the money to pay the lawyers to get Luskin off his back. It's about as funny as the side of your car getting spraypainted with swastikas.

The only reason I can see for this being on slashdot is the possibility that the NY Times (which is linked to all of the time) has some agreement with slashdot, this Luskin attacked one of their columnist and they are fighting back slashdot style? This stuff is silly, is there a tech site like slashdot that is not owned?

The point of this--which seems to escape most commenters--is that this is being used as a tactic to "out" Atrios.

He is an anonymous blogger on political issues--an especially sticky area considering our First Amendment.

Here is the expected sequence of events:1. Luskin subpoenas blogspot.com, get's Atrios' real name.2. Atrios served with complaint.3. Atrios $$$$$$$$$hires lawyer$$$$$$$$$$$$4. Lawyer writes response5. Lawsuit dismissed because Luskin himself referred to himself as a "stalker" and the supposed slanderous comment is a mere repetition of that phrase with no added detail. There are First Amendment reasons the lawsuit should be dismissed but it's not necessary to detail them all.

Meanwhile, Atrios is no longer anonymous.

Given that the purpose of this lawsuit is not to win, but to uncover a person's identity and chill their right to free speech, Luskin and his lawyer should be subject to sanctions.

This whole "calling him a stalker is libel 'cause that's a felony, blah blah blah" is bullshit. Luskin knows damn well that Krugman wasn't accusing him of having committed a felony. But he's desperately trying to score points and muzzle Krugman (and his defenders); Luskin is OBSESSED with the guy.

Further, Luskin is a conservative, right? And he knows pro-lifers, right? Do you suppose he's ever, EVER come across someone who refers to abortion as murder? Or who calls women who've had abortions, or docto

several anonymous commentators made some allegedly libelous statements

This is one of the most curious terms given to us by the current era of media and law suits. If I accuse you of something then it should be up to me to prove it, otherwise I've libelled you. But if you deny it then suddenly my accusation becomes "allegedly libelous", ie: you're the one making an accusation about me and now you have to prove it. It's getting to the point that anyone can say anything about anyone, and as soon as the perso

If he's upset about the anonymous comments to the blog, I don't possibly see how this could hold up in court.

First, it's possible that the site has a disclaimer like "we are not responsible for comments made to this site by the readers". If it doesn't, it probably should.

Second, and most important, is that it's an anonymous comment. You can't really prove who wrote it. Luskin may have put those comments there with intent to then sue the site. Or, someone else with an agenda against either the site or Lusk

Something about that name was tickling my brain for a while before it settled in for me. It was the planet that the Doctor and Romana visited while looking for the 6th segment of the key to time. A propaganda-soaked, war-torn ruin of a world run by an insane military dictator.

Funny, that.

And now that I'm completely unvieled as a goober, I'll go away. Damn, I have having an itch like that in my head.

reading that guy's home page (the poor, stupid one), it seems objectively obvious that the guy is a stalker, at least in the colloquial sense.

On meeting Paul Krugman : "I have looked evil in the face. I've been in the same room with it. I don't know how else to describe my feelings now except to say that I feel unclean, and I'm having to fight being afraid." -Donald Luskin

It's alive and well. It does not, however, allow someone to accuse somone else of a serious crime in print. That's libel. That bloggers, whose amateur globally-distributed ramblings would eventually be held to the same degree of accountability as the professional work of a reporter working at a newspaper in suburban Topeka should come as a relief, not a surprise.

Ok, let's stop right here and apply some good, old-fashioned common sense to this.

If Joe Writer for the Nowhere News writes a column, it's likely he is viewed as a professional jounalist. Regardless of the circulation of Nowhere News it is more likely the few people who read it would believe it because it is Nowhere News' job to present factual information.

Now, if some 13 year old on a blog calls you a faggot or a child molestor it's not likely anyone of the millions upon millions of people in his world